Planning Bill Amendment To Protect Owners

Press, Volume C, Issue 29684, 30 November 1961, Page 11

Planning Bill Amendment To Protect Owners

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Nov. 29. The Minister of Works (Mr Goosman) last evening gave notice of an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Amendment Bill to protect the rights of owners of land designated or reserved in a district scheme for an existing or proposed public work. The change will make the zoning of such land mandatory from February 1 next year. The Bill, as it came back to the House from the Local Bills Committee, merely said “may be zoned.” Mr Goosman told the House during the second reading debate on the Bill: “This looked quite a sample little thing, but since the Bill came back from the committee we have had all sorts of representations. “It has been said that we slipped this clause in to get over a decision of the Town and Country planning Appeal Board on Canterbury Club land in Christchurch. “The legal officers of the Works Deportment assure me that it will not affect that decision. “The legal officers never had any idea there was a difficulty in this clause 10 of the Bii, and I never had any idea of it. But we are now taking steps to deal with the problem.” Mr Goosman said it was not possible to make the zoning of such lend necessary for land designated or reserved in the past “without going over the whole country,” but the proposed amendment to the Bill would take care of the future. Doubts Expressed Mr H. Watt (Opposition, Onehunga) expressed doubts about the proposed amendment. “When I was Minister this came up over land required for a motorway to be constructed through Auckland. The land had been designated as motorway property. It was not zoned at that time. “There was pressure from certain people for zoning before the land was actually designated by the Crown for

, schools or motorways or any Government work. “Some said it was in the interests of the owners to have this zoning then, otherwise they would not get full value if they had to sell to the Crown. Mr N. E. Kirk (Opposition, Lyttelton) said anyone unfortunate enough to own land designated by a local body for a public purpose was in danger of some hardship and the loss of fairly considerable equity if the land was not zoned into the

appropriate category at the time when it was designated tor such purpose. “It migttt be 10 or 15 years from the time ot designation before the land is actually required,” he said. “As I see it, a matter of principle is involved that goes far beyond just the question of the Canterbury Club.” He said he was not lawyer enough to say whether the proposed amendment met the case or not, but he was advised that it did.